my reasoning is horrendous and based in fiction. you've concluded this from all of the investigation you've done into this case aka reading a shotty poorly written article in nymag.com aka a credible source(haha). i don't enjoy going against the grain.

i hate people who just read something, accept it as if these are all the facts, then criticize everyone involved as if they are beneath them aka this entire thread.

"the legal system is shit" "the da is corrupt" "the judge is racist" wtf do you know about the legal system the da or the judge? absolutely nothing. you read a fucking article in a magazine. these types of people are dangerous because they are easily lead to believe anything that sounds like its true. that is why i'm upset.

if you remove this system everyone would opt for a trial and claim innoence and people who have no money for bail would have to sit in county jail for 3 years waiting on a trail. oh wait then you would complain that innocent people are sitting in jail for 3 years.

the vast majority of you people are fucking idiots who have no clue of how the justice system works and why it works that way. the justice system in this country is flooded with cases. you have over worked DAs handling 30-40 cases a day. if plea bargains didn't exist or were more "fair". they would flood the jails and delay court cases by years. these are in the indirect effects.

edit -- oh and before someone shows me a case of someone currently sitting in jail waiting for trail for 3 years then it would become 6 years or 10 years. the point is that it would take longer.

Now, for more than an hour, Detective Mancinelli grilled Daryl. “Mr. Kelly, if you didn’t do anything wrong, how did your finger­prints get on her thighs and buttocks?”

He scrambled for an explanation. “Maybe while I was sleeping,” he said, “my wife took my hands and put them there?”

“How did your semen get inside your daughter’s mouth?”

Daryl tried to make sense of what he was hearing, offering a couple of explanations before saying, “Maybe while I was sleeping my wife had sex with me and then took the semen and put it on her?”

this is his statement to police that was read in the court. now you couple this with a 9 year old saying you raped her in a very descriptive way.

“When you were laying on the floor, what, if anything, did your father do?”

“He, um, stuck his penis in my vagina.”

“And were you laying on your stomach or your back when that happened?”

“Back.”

“And did he do anything else to you?”

“He took his finger.”

“And where did he put his finger?”

“In my vagina.”

that is pretty graphic stuff for a 9 year old to say.

But the prosecutor had fought to keep this information from the jury, arguing it was irrelevant—and the judge agreed. On the witness stand, Charade repeated the allegations she’d earlier told the police and never got to tell the jurors that she now didn’t believe they were true.

this is an outright lie that is unsubstantiated by court records that i read. i could go on but there really is no reason to. if you were on that jury and you were told his statement to the police and saw that 9 year old testify you would bring a guilty verdict back as well.

i don't know how i can explain this but i'm going to try in this way. you pretend that you know nothing about video games at all. now common sense will tell you that the playstation 4 is better than the playstation3. however, i know a lot about video games. if you give me 2 hours i can sit down and construct a super convincing video about why the playstation 3 is a better console.

now uninformed people will take this video and now it becomes their truth. those things in the video sound like facts, blurted out at an incredible speed, so they must be facts. the only thing is a lot of the information in that video is like me telling you the playstation 3 has bigger pool of games than the ps4. is that technical true? yes but its not the whole truth. i'm leaving out the part that ruins my argument. that is what this video does.

oh i knew that immediately when they started responding because the thread was days old and i would randomly receive 20 messages days after the initial debate.

if you go through the entire debate you will notice that i ignored certain people. unfortunately,the power lifting community is filled with a lot of douchebags. i've met some solid guys but a large minority of them(i would say like 30-40%)have some type of complex/self esteem issues. you couple that with how retarded people behave on the internet and you have that argument.

why are people saying this? there is a huge difference in believing in yourself and degrading someone elses victories.

"i think weidman was better on that night but i believe i can beat him"

that is a sensible thing to say not "he got lucky, he shouldn't consider it a win, i would have won if he didn't get lucky, twice." that is exactly what anderson silva is saying. its disrespectful and its petty.